Report no. 51

3-2009

Global Theme on Agroecosystems

ICRISATScience with a human face

Ministry of Rural Development and Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India

Consortium Approach for Capacity Building for Watershed Management in Andhra Pradesh:

A Case Study

The International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) is a non-profit, non-political organization that does innovative agricultural research and capacity building for sustainable development with a wide array of partners across the globe. ICRISAT’s mission is to help empower 600 million poor people to overcome hunger, poverty and a degraded environment in the dry tropics through better agriculture. ICRISAT belongs to the Alliance of Centers of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR).

Contact InformationICRISAT-Patancheru(Headquarters)Patancheru 502 324Andhra Pradesh, IndiaTel +91 40 30713071Fax +91 40 30713074icrisat@cgiar.org

ICRISAT-Liaison OfficeCG Centers BlockNASC ComplexDev Prakash Shastri MargNew Delhi 110 012, IndiaTel +91 11 32472306 to 08 Fax +91 11 25841294

ICRISAT-Nairobi(Regional hub ESA)PO Box 39063, Nairobi, KenyaTel +254 20 7224550Fax +254 20 7224001icrisat-nairobi@cgiar.org

ICRISAT-Niamey(Regional hub WCA)BP 12404, Niamey, Niger (Via Paris)Tel +227 20722529, 20722725Fax +227 20734329icrisatsc@cgiar.org

ICRISAT-BamakoBP 320Bamako, MaliTel +223 2223375Fax +223 2228683icrisat-w-mali@cgiar.org

ICRISAT-BulawayoMatopos Research StationPO Box 776,Bulawayo, ZimbabweTel +263 83 8311 to 15Fax +263 83 8253/8307icrisatzw@cgiar.org

ICRISAT-LilongweChitedze Agricultural Research StationPO Box 1096Lilongwe, MalawiTel +265 1 707297/071/067/057Fax +265 1 707298icrisat-malawi@cgiar.org

ICRISAT-Maputoc/o IIAM, Av. das FPLM No 2698Caixa Postal 1906Maputo, MozambiqueTel +258 21 461657Fax +258 21 461581icrisatmoz@panintra.com

About ICRISATICRISAT

Science with a human face

www.icrisat.orgDeutsche Gesellschaft für Technische

Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH

© International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), 2008. All rights reserved.

ICRISAT holds the copyright to its publications, but these can be shared and duplicated for non-commercial purposes. Permission to make digital or hard copies of part(s) or all of any publication for non-commercial use is hereby granted as long as ICRISAT is properly cited. For any clarification, please contact the Director of Communication at icrisat@cgiar.org. ICRISAT’s name and logo are registered trademarks and may not be used without permission. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice.

Citation: Wani Suhas P., Sreedevi, T.K., Sreenath Dixit, Kareemulla, K., Ravindra Singh and Tirupataiah, K. 2009. Consortium Approach for Capacity Building for Watershed Management in Andhra Pradesh: A Case Study. Global Theme on Agroecosystems Report no. 51. Patancheru 502 324, Andhra Pradesh, India; International Crops Research Institute for Semi-Arid Tropics, 48 pages

This publication is part of the research project “Comprehensive Assessment of Watershed Programs in India“ funded by the Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture (CA) and was funded in part through a grant from the Government of India to the International Water Management Institute in support of the Assessment.

Abstract

In Andhra Pradesh, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) has developed and demonstrated holistic consortium approach for improving rural livelihoods through community watersheds. In Andhra Pradesh Rural Livelihoods Programme (APRLP) supported by Department of International Development (DFID), U.K. ICRISAT scaled-up the consortium approach with technical backstopping in 150 watersheds in five districts.

Andhra Pradesh pioneered and up-scaled the livelihood approach in watersheds for improving rural incomes in dryland areas. As the complexity of meeting the capacity building demands of watershed development projects increased, Andhra Pradesh took the initiative of forming a consortium for providing services to the watershed development stakeholders. This consortium offered lessons and learnings to those in search of new paradigms of integrating watershed development issues with those of rural livelihoods. A study titled Consortium Approach for Capacity Building for Watershed Management in Andhra Pradesh: A Case Study was undertaken through GTZ-Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India (GoI) support to chronicle the evolution of the capacity building consortium in Andhra Pradesh and documenting the lessons learnt, including the experience of ICRISAT in consortium approach for improving the livelihoods of the rural poor.

The study explored the consortium’s role in meeting the capacity building demands for complex livelihood approach, mentoring and handholding demands by the consortium partners, the process of forming consortium through capacity building, demystification of the government departments like the Commissionerate of Rural Development and NGOs’ role and experiences to implement the development agenda of the state along with the benefits and shortcomings which need to be addressed for effective functioning. The case study also recommended some practical steps for establishing and strengthening state level consortium in terms of reviewing mechanism, and sequencing activities, selection of criteria for consortium members, etc. Recently Government of India released new common watershed guidelines professing holistic livelihood approach and this case study would benefit important capacity building aspect for achieving better program implementation in different states.

Global Theme on AgroecosystemsReport no. 51

Consortium Approach for Capacity Building for Watershed Management in Andhra Pradesh:

A Case Study

International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid TropicsPatancheru 502 324, Andhra Pradesh, India

2009

Suhas P Wani, TK Sreedevi, Sreenath Dixit, K Kareemulla, Ravindra Singh and K Tirupataiah

Ministry of Agriculture, Government of IndiaNew Delhi, India

ICRISATScience with a human face

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbHNew Delhi 110 029, India

ii

About the Authors

Suhas P Wani Principal Scientist (Watersheds) and Regional Theme Coordinator (Asia), Global Theme on Agroecosystems, ICRISAT, Patancheru 502 324, Andhra Pradesh, India.

TK Sreedevi Senior Scientist (Watershed Development), Global Theme on Agroecosystems, ICRISAT, Patancheru 502 324, Andhra Pradesh, India.

Sreenath Dixit Principal Scientist (Agril. Extension) & Team Leader, Socio economic and Policy Research Cell, CRIDA, Santoshnagar, Hyderabad 500 059, Andhra Pradesh, India.

K Kareemulla Senior Scientist, Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture (CRIDA), Santoshnagar, Saidabad (PO), Hyderabad 500 059.

Ravindra Singh Programme Officer, German Technical Cooperation Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) gmbh, B-5/1, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi 110 029, India.

K Tirupataiah Special Commissioner (Rural Development), Office of Com missioner, Rural Development, 2nd and 5th Floor, Hermitage Complex, Huda Bhavan, Hill Fort Road, Saifabad, Hyderabad 500 004, Andhra Pradesh, India.

The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of ICRISAT or GTZ or GOI. The designations employed and the presentation of material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of ICRISAT or GTZ or GOI concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Where trade names are used, this does not constitute endorsement of or discrimination against any product by ICRISAT or GTZ or GOI.

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge Mrs. Santhi Kumari, Commissioner, Rural Development, Government of Andhra Pradesh, for her support to this study and other staff members for their valuable insights. Mr. A Ravindra from WASSAN; Mr. Uma Maheswar Rao, Commissioner, APARD and other staff of APARD, BAIF, CRIDA and Mahbubnagar Cluster Level Capacity Building staff for sparing their valuable time. We are also thankful to GTZ for providing financial support to the project.

iii

Contents

Executive Summary ...............................................................................................................vii 1. Background ....................................................................................................................... 1 2. Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 1 3. Evolution of the Consortium Approach ............................................................................. 2 4. Organizational Structure .................................................................................................. 5 5. Criteria for Selection of Consortium Members ................................................................. 6 6. Capacity Building of Consortium Partners ........................................................................ 6 7. Levels of Service Providers ................................................................................................ 7 8. Roles of Livelihood Consortium Partners ......................................................................... 7 9. Nature of Services Expected from Consortium Members ............................................... 1010. Demand – Delivery Mechanism ...................................................................................... 1111. Funding .......................................................................................................................... 1112. Major Achievements of the Consortium ......................................................................... 1213. Monitoring and Review ................................................................................................... 1214. Impact ............................................................................................................................ 1215. Operational Lessons and Constraints ............................................................................. 1416. Where to From Here? ..................................................................................................... 15Annexure I: Terms of Reference of the Study ................................................................. 17

Annexure II: Memorandum of Understanding ................................................................. 18

Annexure III: Memorandum of Understanding for Professional Support to Livelihood Resource Centers ....................................................................... 22

Annexure IV: Theme-Wise Organizations in the Consortium of Resource Organizations ... 27

Annexure V: Profile of Service Providers .......................................................................... 28

Annexure VI: Important Features of the HR Policy of CRDas Applicable to TSU and D/CLRC .............................................................................................. 35

Annexure VII: List of Watershed Training Modules Produced by Consortium for Commissioner, Rural Development, Andhra Pradesh .......................................................... 37

Annexure VIII: Proposals of Consortium Resource Organizations across Themes ................ 38

Annexure IX: Financial Arrangements ............................................................................... 39

Annexure X: Infrastructure with D/CLRCs ..................................................................... 41

Annexure XI: Summary of Major Accomplishments of Livelihood Consortium ................ 43

iv

ADB Asian Development Bank AICRPAM All India Coordinated Research Project for Agrometeorology AICRPDA All India Coordinated Research Project for Dryland AgricultureAIDS Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome ALCI Access Livelihoods Consulting India Pvt. LtdAME Agriculture, Man and EcologyANGRAU Acharya NG Ranga Agricultural UniversityAMR-APARD A. Madhava Reddy Andhra Pradesh Academy of Rural DevelopmentAPCs Assistant Project Coordinators APMAS Andhra Pradesh Mahila Abhivridhi Sangham APRLP Andhra Pradesh Rural Livelihoods Program BASIX Bhartiya Samruddhi Finance LimitedBIRD BAIF Institute for Rural Development CB Capacity BuildingCBO Community Based Organization CDS Center for Development Studies CEO Chief Executive OfficerCLDP Comprehensive Land Development ProjectCLRCs Cluster Level Livelihood Resource Centers CMRC Community Managed Resource Centres CPRs Common Pool ResourcesCRD Commissionerate of Rural DevelopmentCRIDA Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture CSA Center for Sustainable Agriculture DATTDCBC District Capacity Building Centre DCBCs District Capacity Building Centres DFID Department for International DevelopmentDHANF Development of Humane Action FoundationDLRC District Livelihood Resource CenterDRDA District Rural Development Agency DWMA District Water Management Agency FTE Fixed Tenure EmployeeGO Government OrderGoAP Government of Andhra PradeshGP Gram PanchayatHHs HouseholdsHIV Human Immunodeficiency VirusHR Human ResourceICRISAT International Crops Research Institute for Semi-Arid Tropics

Acronyms/Abbreviations

v

ICT Information and Communication TechnologyIFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development JK JK TrustLRC Livelihood Resource CenterMARI Modern Architects for Rural IndiaMDT Multi Disciplinary TeamMoU Memorandum of UnderstandingMYRADA Mysore Resettlement and Development Agency NARS National Agricultural Research System NGO Non-Government OrganizationNREGA National Rural Employment Guarantee ActNRM Natural Resource Management NRSA National Remote Sensing Agency PAI Personal Accident InsurancePD Project DirectorPFA Project Facilitating Agency PIA Project Implementing AgencyPMU Project Management UnitPRDIS Participatory Rural Development Initiatives SocietyPRPs Pool of Resource Persons PSA Professional Support AgencyPSU Program Support Unit RD Rural Development RDT Rural Development Trust, AnantapurSAMETI State Agricultural Management and Extension Training InstituteSAUs State Agricultural Universities SERP Society for Elimination of Rural PovertySHGs Self-Help Groups SPMU State Project Management UnitSRTRI Swamy Ramananda Tirtha Rural Institute TOR Terms of Reference TOT Transfer of TechnologyTSU Technical Support UnitVO Village Organizations WASSAN Watershed Support Services NetworkWDT Watershed Development TrustWOTR Watershed Organization TrustWSD Watershed DevelopmentWSM Watershed Management

vii

Executive SummaryMany approaches were tried and experimented in watershed development approaches till 1995. The initial approaches emphasized more on physical aspects with little or no focus on people’s participation. By the year 2000 people’s participation in watershed development evolved into a more encompassing issue, addressing sustainable livelihoods. The state of Andhra Pradesh has been a pioneer in adopting the watershed approach for developing its large dry tracts and has evolved over time into a leader in institutionalizing watershed development through people’s participation.

The Commissionerate of Rural Development (CRD), Government of Andhra Pradesh, implemented the DFID funded Andhra Pradesh Rural Livelihoods Project in the year 2000 in select districts with an overall objective of improving the livelihoods of the poor through a holistic watershed development approach. Several innovations were tried in this project with initiatives from the donors and the CRD. When the project was at its final stage, the donors suggested to up-scale the project to the entire state. The CRD however, felt it appropriate to focus on intensive development of watersheds by emphasizing on quality of implementation in select districts. This probably was a prudent move as it gave CRD important learnings, besides providing an opportunity and lead-time to gear up itself for a larger task ahead.

The CH Hanumantha Rao Committee recommendations gave impetus to many innovations like involvement of multi-disciplinary team in program implementation. By 1999, the government started realizing the potential of NGOs for implementing the WSM programs, as they had demonstrated by then their strengths in community mobilization at grassroot level. Around the same time, the APRLP was taking shape in the state. Therefore, the need for a range of resource organizations to cater to the multiple needs of WSM was felt. Thus, the idea of forming a consortium to cater to the wide-ranging needs of watershed development took shape. Since then the idea of consortium of resource organizations has seen several modifications and improvements, offering many learnings to those in search of new paradigms of integrating watershed development issues with the issues of rural livelihoods.

A study was taken up to document the evolution of the consortium and lessons learned in the process. Significant findings of the study are as follows.

The consortium did not follow any rigid organizational structure but evolved into a relatively flat •entity of institutions having different cultures and expertise in different theme areas.The consortium partners were selected primarily on their experience and proven skills on the •themes proposed for partnership; organization needs to bring in their stake in the form of additional personnel or funds for diversified initiatives.The consortium caters to three levels of service requirement viz. at the state level, district level and •at the cluster level. At the state level the consortium provides the desired services like preparation of training modules for capacity building and technical support. While at the district level formation of pool of resource persons (PRPs) is a significant contribution. At the cluster level organizing quality trainings for the development workers is an important contribution. The consortium partners exploited the synergy of partnership. However, lack of systems for •incentivization and accountability seemed to have diluted the initiative in later stages. CRD very well anchored the Livelihood Consortium and facilitated both as PMU and policy •formulation body to empower the Livelihood Consortium with its functionalities. It also ensured availability of funds for the CB process. However, they seemed to have lacked initiative to lead the flock together at later stages, due to change in personnel at key positions.

viii

The most sought after services by D/CLRCs were capacity building of Course Directors, preparation •of training modules, helping in documentation of case studies, preparing and linking pool of resource persons, preparation of business development plans among others. Services like professional support, anchoring CB centres, training module development, techno- •managerial services and pilot interventions were provided by the Livelihood Consortium. CRD funded for implementing the consortium for capacity building and APARD channeled the •funds to the consortium partners/ professional support agencies. Broad guidelines on the cost norms were devised for the purpose. Monitoring and review of the progress of consortium activities were found inadequate and no •conflict resolution mechanism was found in place.

The consortium was able to meet the capacity building, mentoring and handholding demands by the community to a great extent. A significant impact of having the consortium was the demystification of the government departments like the Commissionerate of Rural Development. Similarly, the NGOs also got an opportunity to be active partners in ongoing government programmes and share their expertise and experiences to help implement the development agenda of the state. Consortium also helped to bring to light many grassroots NGOs that had immense experience in terms of community mobilization and nurturing community based organizations.

An important credit to the consortium could be that AP’s experience of experiments in WSM has been adopted in the new guidelines of WSM issued by Government of India. These included multi-disciplinary body of state level and resource organizations at state and district levels. The consortium helped in bringing down the transaction costs to the CRD in terms of outsourcing of training material. The consortium offered a forum for sharing and learning especially on processes adopted by different partners and it worked very well as long as there was good program support from the Program Support Unit (PSU).

The consortium followed by CRD in AP has yielded a high degree of synergy in the context of WSD and livelihoods. It offers valuable learnings to many states that have similar interests.

1

1. BackgroundWatershed management is an accepted approach for development of poorly endowed rain-fed regions of India. Since late 1980s India has been adopting various approaches to bring in efficacy in watershed management with the objective of benefiting the poor and the marginalized in rural areas. Andhra Pradesh has been a pioneer in experimenting and innovating methods for watershed management with special emphasis on integrating natural resource management (NRM) with livelihoods. Projects like Andhra Pradesh Rural Livelihoods Program (APRLP) showcased the methodology for achieving better integration of watershed development with livelihood issues. The learnings accrued during the implementation of APRLP have drawn the attention of various agencies implementing similar programs on rural poverty alleviation across the country and elsewhere.

As the complexity of meeting the capacity building demands of watershed development projects increased, Andhra Pradesh took the initiative of forming a consortium for providing services to the watershed development stakeholders. This was also an initiative though which the DORD, Government of AP desired to continue its engagement with good civil society organizations working in the area of watershed development.

The APRLP brought out a significant factor that for effective capacity building providing adequate funding is necessary but not sufficient condition. Establishment of a) institutions of capacity building, b) positioning professionally trained coordinators, c) putting in place a pool of resource persons/organizations and d) developing practical oriented CB modules and materials, etc., are also as much necessary for effective CB initiative. In the process, several lessons were learned in terms of building capacity of various stakeholders involved in project management. It would be worthwhile to chronicle and document the lessons, and understand their implications in the context of upscaling, keeping in view the viability and sustainability of such efforts. This study, therefore, attempts to document such capacity building initiatives undertaken through consortium approach (TOR in Annexure – I).

1.1 Presentation of the Report

The report chronicles the evolution of the consortium and moves ahead documenting the lessons learnt in the process. While doing so it may not deal with the TOR in the order of their listing. Due care has been taken to deal with each of the TOR under appropriate sections. First, the approach adopted for this study is presented.

2. MethodologyThe case study was approached with a view to basically document the processes and the learnings of capacity building through consortium approach in the backdrop of the terms of the TOR. It essentially involved the study of relevant documents, proceedings, minutes of important meetings and circulars from CRD and APARD, and NGO network partners like WASSAN.

Besides, key officers / players of the Consortium such as Commissionerate of Rural Development (CRD), A. Madhava Reddy Andhra Pradesh Academy of Rural Development (AMR-APARD), Watershed Support Services Network (WASSAN), Andhra Pradesh Mahila Abhivridhi Sangham (APMAS), Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture (CRIDA) and BAIF Institute for Rural Development (BIRD) were interviewed with a pre-designed open-ended questionnaire. On a sample basis in one district i.e. Mahbubnagar, CB institutions were probed in detail to understand the actual

2

process at the ground level. At the district level, District Water Management Agency (DWMA), District Livelihood Resource Center/ District Capacity Building Centre (DLRC/DCBC) were studied to document their role and experiences pertaining to consortium functioning. At the sub-district level, two Cluster Level Livelihood Resource Centers (CLRCs) located at Moosapet and Kosgi were randomly selected from Mahbubnagar district and the officials were interviewed personally.

Since the approach of Livelihood Consortium is meant to bring in change in the pool and quality of CB services, the ultimate/ primary stakeholders had to be studied. Therefore, at each of the two sample CLRCs, focused feedback sessions were held with a group of 15 persons who had undergone training at CLRCs.

3. Evolution of the Consortium ApproachTill 1995, the watershed development programs were in experimentation phase during which many approaches were tried. Initially, the watershed programs were departmental in nature and emphasized construction of structures such as check dams, bunds, percolation ponds, etc., without much emphasis on people’s participation. The structures, however, failed to generate lasting impact as they either disintegrated or failed to serve the purpose over time for want of follow-up, maintenance and repair. This was essentially due to lack of community ownership. Another dimension of WSM in this stage was that the program was too skewed in its approach towards landed communities. And this led to the realization that enabling participation of all sections - the landed, the landless, artisans and others - is crucial to producing overall impact in watersheds. This was strengthened by examples set out in Ralegaon Sidhi and Adgaon in Maharashtra, Kabbalanala and Mittemari in Karnataka, Jhabua in Madhya Pradesh, Kothapally in Andhra Pradesh experiments. By the year 2000, people’s participation in watershed development evolved into a more encompassing issue addressing sustainable livelihoods. As a result, the following emerged as major issues to be dealt with in order to make the programs more inclusive.

People’s participation with stake for the poor and the landless •Capacity building of stakeholders at different levels •Equity in distribution of project benefits •Convergence •Post-project management •

The guidelines of CH Hanumantha Rao Committee gave impetus to many innovations like involvement of multi-disciplinary team in program implementation. These guidelines also provided scope for involving NGOs as Project Implementation Agencies (PIAs). By late 90s, DORD, Government of Andhra Pradesh had almost 60% of PIAs from NGO sector.

The advent of APRLP provided further opportunity to engage NGOs at higher levels as Resource Organizations.

By this time reputed NGOs like Watershed Organization Trust (WTOR), BIRD, Mysore Resettlement and Development Agency (MYRADA) and OUTREACH had demonstrated the need for handling finer aspects such as capacity building, technical and institutional backstopping and micro enterprising in the realm of WSM. These NGOs were invited by CRD to demonstrate their strengths in Andhra Pradesh. This may be regarded as a landmark step in the history of largely public funded watershed development programs, as it heralded a new arrangement of working in a partnership mode. Thus, the

3

idea of a Livelihood Consortium took shape. From a small group of 5 organizations, the Consortium grew to an institution of about 27 organizations comprising government, non-government and research organizations. The basic premise on which the consortium came into being may be summarized as follows.

Institutional connectivity for sustainability •Scope to look at impact of capacity building systems in implementation •Space for local innovations •Develop organic linkage between CB institutions at district and cluster levels •Documentation of best practices for replication •Working in partnership •

After successful implementation of APRLP, funded by DFID, the Government of Andhra Pradesh decided to upscale the CB initiatives across the state so that they area applied to the entire state of Andhra Pradesh from November 2004 on.

Later, the consortium was formed in the year 2004 with issue of a Government Order (G.O.) to cover all the 22 districts. The G.O. Ms. No. 381 dtd. 16/12/2004 of Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, Andhra Pradesh, ordered for implementation of learnings from the APRLP. This G.O. stressed the role of the Livelihood Consortium.

The timeline below captures important stages in the formation of Livelihood Consortium.

Initiative TimelinePilots as Learning Laboratories Early 2000Working Group for Capacity Building 2001-2003District Capacity Building Centres in APRLP Districts 2001-2007CB Network – Rangareddy District 2001-2003Networks of PIAs in Nalgonda (Network Based Watershed Project Management)

2002-2004

Pool of Resource Persons 2000-continuingWatershed Based Livelihoods Promotion – An approach facilitated by ICRISAT

2003-2006

Livelihoods Resource Centres Consortium of Resource Organizations

2004-continuing

Source: Ramachandrudu, M.V. (2008) Innovations in Capacity building efforts. Working Paper (Unpub.)

Subsequently, the G.O. Ms.No. 275 dtd. 26.07.05, referring to G.O. Ms. No.381 dtd 16.12.2004 brought out the following points for operationizing the consortium approach for CB.

The AMR-APARD shall coordinate all matters related to placement, contracts and other issues •related to outsourcing of professionals to man the D/CLRCs.The members of the Livelihood Consortium shall be encouraged to anchor the D/CLRCs •The fund towards the remuneration and other costs of D/CLRCs shall be placed at the disposal of •the Commissioner, AMR- APARD by the Commissioner Rural DevelopmentThe Commissioner, AMR- APARD shall work out modalities of monitoring the activities / •performance of D/CLRCs and coordinate the same either internally or by outsourcing

4

Performance of these centers be reviewed in the Governing Board meeting of the AMR-APARD •Over a period of five years, effort should be made to make the D/CLRCs move on the path of self •sustainabilityThe Commissioner of AMR-APARD should work out detailed guidelines for the day to day working •of these centers in consultation with the CRDEfforts should be made to develop “operational manuals” to help in the smooth running of these •institutions.

The consortium that came into being with a few organizations joining it gradually evolved into a multi-institutional and multi-disciplinary entity of 27 organizations.

The major objectives of formation of the consortium were:

to institutionalize innovative ways for WSM; •bringing in the strength of diverse organizations to converge at watershed level; •nurture peoples’ institutions that would bring in post-project sustainability. •

The institutions that joined the consortium had different backgrounds, organizational cultures and mindsets. Therefore, it was necessary to devise a set of ‘rules of the game’ in order to harness the strengths of different players. Initially, the consortium members signed a MoU that specified the broad outline of the rules of the consortium (Annexure- II). All the organizations signed the MoU. A Core Group comprising of representatives of AMR-APARD, PMU-CRD and WASSAN was constituted for working out the modalities of functioning of the consortium. Since the services required for WSM fall into four themes, viz., institutional and capacity building, livelihoods/enterprises, productivity enhancement and natural resources management, the consortium was divided into four sub-groups.

Consortium of Resource Organizations

t t t t

Institution Building/ Capacity Building

Livelihoods/ Enterprise Promotion

Productivity Enhancement

Natural Resource

Management

In order to address the capacity building at the district level a mechanism for extending professional support to the D/CLRCs, MoUs were signed between the stakeholders (Annexure –III).

In order to understand the process of formation and functioning of the Consortium in detail, the Productivity Enhancement Sub-group led by ICRISAT under the APRLP was chosen since it represented one of the most diverse sub-groups in terms of organizations involved and issues addressed. ICRISAT adopted consortium approach on a larger scale by putting together a range of organizations – national and state agricultural research institutions, government development departments, NGOs, women’s self-help groups (SHGs) – for effective convergence at watershed level. ICRISAT had strategic advantage to lead the consortium of productivity enhancement group, as it had the past experience of leading consortia under its various projects funded by Asian Development Bank, International Fund for Agricultural Development and such other donor agencies.

5

3.1 Experience of ICRISAT in Consortium Approach

The ICRISAT-led consortium provided technical backstopping to the DFID-APRLP to scale up the benefits of holistic watershed management approach through convergence for improving the livelihoods of the rural poor. Ten nucleus watersheds and 40 satellite watersheds in Mahbubnagar, Kurnool, and Nalgonda districts were selected to develop the strategy for up scaling. Considering the number of consortium partners involved it was essential to build a team of partners/individuals to work together. This called for working out a detailed strategy for team building for the consortium. The steps involved in the strategy were as follows.

Ensuring the support of the heads of organizations/ members of the consortium •Nomination of members to represent the organizations in the consortium •Team building exercises with the core team including the entire network of consortium partners in •the fourth round, using the cascade approach.

The team building exercises were taken up in four rounds. The first round included the core group of scientists at ICRISAT; the second included the entire ICRISAT Watershed Team along with the core group. In the third round, the National Agricultural Research System (NARS) partners including National Remote Sensing Agency (NRSA) joined. The fourth round consisted of the entire network of government and NGOs including all those who participated in the previous rounds of team building exercise. Thus, the project objectives were reinforced at all the levels and across all the partner organizations of the consortium. The broad objectives of the team building workshops were:

bring about a common vision of the APRLP watershed development program among consortium •partners;inculcate a team spirit among the members to achieve the goal of sustainable NRM for improved •rural livelihoods;develop an understanding of and appreciation for the efforts and initiatives taken up by various •teams;discuss and develop action plans for desired impact; •develop a combined strategy to upscale the impact to the neighboring watersheds. •

Even though the Productivity Enhancement Sub Group meticulously followed this process, other groups did not seem to take this process seriously. There is no evidence of any other sub group having taken up team building at the thematic level. The exchange between the four sub-groups used to take place only during workshops and meetings convened at the consortium level. There seemed to be no attempt to coordinate the outputs of different partners of sub groups at the operational level. This would have probably given ample scope for knowledge and information sharing across the consortium sub groups.

4. Organizational Structure When the idea was conceived, it was a single layer organization with different organizations as part of it. However, as these organizations provided four distinct services, four sub-groups were formed with a Coordinator for each sub-group (see table in Annexure -IV). A defined organizational structure however was not contemplated while formulating the consortium for two important reasons: the consortium formulation was not a single event but it evolved over time through a process and to allow sufficient space for the partners to perform and learn during the course working together. Broadly it may be said that the consortium is a flat structure with no rigid hierarchical levels providing a fair opportunity for all partners to perform.

6

The capacity building for rural development including watershed development is a complex task. To meet this demand, at the district level District Capacity Building Centres (DCBCs in the APRLP districts) or District Livelihood Resource Centres (DLRCs in non- APRLP districts) and at the cluster level, Cluster Level Livelihoods Resource Centres (CLRCs) have been formed as shown below.

District Total Watersheds No. of DLRCs No. of CLRCsMahbubnagar 723 1 (DCBC) 6

Andhra Pradesh 6856 17 55

The D/CLRCs are CB institutions at the district and sub-district level. However, these Centres were either anchored or professionally supported by the Livelihood Consortium.

A brief profile of the major consortium members is provided in Annexure V.

5. Criteria for Selection of Consortium MembersThe Core Group of the Consortium came out with the following criteria for including institutions/ organizations as consortium partners.

Organization has to be member of the state level consortium •Organization should have considerable experience and proven skills on the themes proposed for •partnership Organization needs to bring in their stake in the form of additional personnel or funds for diversified •initiatives at Livelihood Resource Center. Partnership needs to be on cost sharing basis to be effectiveOrganization needs to have a presence in the district (nature of presence may be as an implementing •or facilitation agency) Organization should have belief in participatory processes and mentoring skills •Organization’s should have ability to address equity issues •

6. Capacity Building of Consortium PartnersAs it is widely accepted that capacity building is the key for scaling up and scaling out, a mention is made here of the processes followed in the APRLP by ICRISAT. At each of the five APRLP districts in which ICRISAT-led consortium for productivity enhancement was implementing interventions, a systematic scaling up and scaling out strategy was adopted. During first year of implementation of the project, capacity building of farmers of select villages (nucleus watersheds) was taken up by experts of the consortium. In the second year, capacity building of farmers in the three watersheds (called satellite watersheds) around each of the nucleus watersheds was addressed by using the services of the farmers of the nucleus watersheds. By this way, a critical number for scaling up and scaling out of productivity enhancement strategy was achieved.

After the formation of the consortium and setting up of D/CLRCs, the capacity building of the personnel manning of these institutions was done by APARD through induction and orientation training. Some of the programs undertaken for building the capacity of the consortium and capacity building system during the period since the establishment of the consortium are as follows

Orientation for newly placed DCBC/PMU members done in April 2004 •

7

2 orientation-training programs conducted in for the newly recruited professionals of D/CLRCs •(each 6 days) in 2004-056 orientation-training programs conducted in for the newly recruited professionals of D/CLRCs •(each 6 days) in 2005-06ICRISAT organized training courses for about 200 WDTs and DLRC coordinators on productivity •enhancement.

ICRISAT organized team building for the productivity enhancement sub-group of the Livelihood Consortium that it was leading. Barring this, no other initiative on CB for the Livelihood Consortium partners was taken up.

7. Levels of Service ProvidersBroadly, there are three levels of service requirement viz. at the state level, district level and at the cluster level. At the state level the Livelihood Consortium provides the desired services like preparation of training modules for capacity building and technical support. While at the district level formation of pool of resource persons (PRPs) is a significant contribution. However, at the cluster level no significant capacity building or technical support effort seemed to have percolated. The exceptions however, were that CLRCs were anchored by Livelihood Consortium partners themselves. The CLRCs are utilizing services of Community Resource Persons (CPRs) who are practicing villagers benefited from the program and therefore, make a greater impact on fellow villagers in terms of practicability of ideas.

The specific roles and support services expected from the partners are incorporated in the MoU. For instance, the DWMA has to provide all the necessary linkages with Gram Panchayats and Village Organizations, approve the CB plans prepared by the Project Facilitation/Implementation Agency. Similarly, the roles of Consortium Resource Organization, which anchors the D/CLRC are pronounced like support to local PFA in assessing the CB needs in the respective watershed area, develop a calendar of CB events at the CLRC level and identify the pool of resource persons.

8. Roles of Livelihood Consortium Partners The roles agreed upon by different consortium partners are as follows.

8.1 Project Management Unit (PMU) – Commissionerate of Rural Development (CRD)

General functions

Provide professional inputs to the watershed project at state level in the fields of capacity building; •livelihoods, productivity enhancement; project management; micro finance and so on.Sensitize the district administration on the capacity building agenda and create necessary policy •environmentIndicate the priority areas of capacity building to the consortium from time to time. •

Facilitate the assessment of the capacity building needs of different stakeholders (primary/ secondary/ tertiary) from time-to-time and indicate them by using the services of the consortium and AMR APARD.

8

Members to act as resource persons for explaining the policy directions on different themes and •enhance the understanding of the consortium members. Issue guidelines for project directors for identifying the physical structures of LRC/DLRC. •

Ensure necessary funding support from DWMA to strengthen the capacity building agenda at DLRC/ LRC levels.

Mobilize adequate financial resources to strengthen the capacity building process of pool of resource •persons and secondary stakeholders (PIA coordinators, MDT, CRD staff), over and above normal provisions available under the watershed projects.Support the evolution of collaboration of partnerships at state/ district/ local levels. •

Review and monitor the action plans for capacity building at state level/ district/ local levels.

The Project Management Unit (PMU) came into existence in February 2002. Until then the APRLP had been managed by a Project Support Unit situated outside the RD Commissionerate. The PMU is institutionally under the Commissioner Rural Development (CRD) and managed by the Special Commissioner, APRLP. The role of the PMU is to supervise and monitor APRLP in 5 districts. The ultimate goal of strengthening the CRD’s office is to achieve the effective implementation of APRLP.

The PMU is primarily responsible for the implementation of project and has a strategic role in watershed program management in project districts with appropriate links with other APRLP structure. The PMU also has other functions. The PMU as the state level management unit is supervising the project for its smooth and effective implementation. It is providing all necessary logistic, technical and administrative support to the APRLP districts in adopting APRLP approaches and implementing various activities of the project. The PMU is functioning by mainly focusing on the following core areas of the project like capacity building, social mobilization, gender, natural resource management productivity enhancement, livelihoods, monitoring & evaluation. Each of these core areas is managed by subject specialists working as the Assistant Project Coordinators (APCs) in the PMU. The details of the HR policy are given in Annexure – VI.

8.2 AMR-APARD

Support the capacity building strategy by:

Collaborate with Consortium of Resource Organizations at state level. •Develop partnerships with WASSAN, a state level resource organization for acting as a secretariat •to the Consortium of Resource Organizations. Act like a nodal agency for Commissioner, Rural Development for capacity building purposes. •As a nodal agency, AMR APARD would be responsible for developing/ fine-tuning capacity building •strategy and facilitating the implementation of the same.Act like a knowledge and documentation center for watershed program at state level. •Support PMU, CRD in organizing specific training programs for secondary stakeholders. •Anchor and coordinate thematic studies. •Develop and enter into MOU between AMR-APARD and members of Consortium of Resource •Organizations on their roles and responsibilities. Develop partnerships with members of Consortium of Resource Organizations on theme specific •projects/ tasks to be performed by the members with a TOR.

9

Approve TORs and channelize funds for different activities of Consortium and its members based •on clear action plans/ projects prepared by resource organizations.Participate in the quarterly review meetings of Consortium of Resource Organizations •Organize sharing workshops once in six months for all members of Consortium of Resource •OrganizationsSupport the process of establishing District and Cluster Level Livelihoods Resource Centers. •Finalize the selection process and criteria for identification of Resource Centers at cluster/district •level.Support DWMA and other resource organizations in recruitments of staff •Develop a prototype TOR between DWMA and LRC and formalizing the same. •Develop cost norms for different activities. •Develop systems for fund flows and monitoring systems. •Report to PMU, CRD on the progress and over all achievements. •

8.3 Roles and Functions of Members of Consortium

The main functions of the members of this consortium are envisaged at two levels, which are mentioned below.

Decision making functions

Participate in the consortium meetings and contribute to •The evolution of over all development of the strategy. •Action planning process at state level/ district level for strengthening capacity building inputs. •Review the progress and provide inputs to improve the performance. •

Support the process of creating favorable policy support to the capacity building agenda in terms •of finalizing.Support the selection process of individuals for PRP. •Decisions on allocating tasks to any resource organization and/ or taking the services of engaging •any resource organization.Share the experiences; knowledge and resource material with the consortium – through participating •in workshops; e groups and so on. Comment on the quality, utility and relevance existing modules and new modules (that would be •developed from time to time).

Professional support

Depending on the need, each member would take up a specific theme (based on their expertise and experience) and undertake the following activities.

Develop resource material and modules for capacity building purpose. •Develop capacities of “pool of resource persons” on the given theme as required, through conducting •training of trainers on the above theme Provide backstopping support to the PRP members on the given theme. Depending on the •experience and expertise, the level at which these resource organizations operate could be decided. The members of Consortium may take up the role of anchoring and/or backstopping a LRC in a given district and make it a model LRC on a given theme.Undertake any action research project (studies; innovations; field level experimentation) in terms •of enhancing capacity building agenda

10

Secretariat/Professional functions

Secretariat of the organizations takes up the following responsibilities.

Communicate with the members of Consortium of Resource Organizations •Set the agenda for meetings of Consortium of Resource Organizations in consultation with members •and communicating the same to membersOrganize coordination and review meetings of the consortium for strengthening the capacity •building inputs from time to timeProvide independent feedback to the Consortium of Resource Organizations on the process of •providing capacity building inputs by PRP at D/CLRCFacilitate the process of identification of potential resource persons to form pool of resource persons •in each district from the existing networks of NGOs and other resource organizations Develop appropriate quality enhancement systems in capacity building inputs •

The consortium partners took the Livelihood Consortium approach as a means to exploit the synergy of partnership. However, lack of systems for incentivization and accountability seemed to have diluted the initiative in later stages. CRD very well anchored the Livelihood Consortium and facilitated both as PMU and policy formulation body to empower the Livelihood Consortium with its functionalities. It also ensured availability of funds for the CB process. However, they seemed to have lacked initiative to lead the flock together at later stages, due to change in personnel at key positions. This shows that at some level the efforts were primarily driven at personal level rather that at institutional level. Further, the incumbents did not take to these roles as easily as their predecessors did due to lack of a transition management strategy.

AMR-APARD ensured establishment of district and cluster level CB institutions and provided CB backstopping by preparing required training manuals and methodologies. AMR-APARD handled project management activities such as facilitating fund flow to free the CRD of some project related burden besides providing greater leverage to CRD in having to deal with regular admin procedures. This seemed to have affected APARD’s contribution in areas like capacity building of Livelihood Consortium partners which was essential but found missing in the scheme of things.

The other Livelihood Consortium partners contributed to the growth of consortium through their participation in meetings, workshops, preparation of training material, identification of PRPs and in anchoring CLRCs. However, they seemed to have been bogged down by the pressure of these responsibilities and did not contribute to development of cases and carrying out action research which was very essential to take the consortium to a higher plane of learning.

9. Nature of Services Expected from Consortium MembersThe nature of services expected from the consortium partners fall into two broad spheres viz. Support Organization (handholding) to District/Cluster Livelihood Resource Centre (D/CLRC) and anchoring D/CLRC. The details of handholding support to D/CLRC are as follows.

Establish institutional arrangements/role clarity. •Prepare the pool of resource persons •Identify resource persons •Develop their capacities •Link the centers with PRP •

11

Develop/collect/use modules •Support planning and review meetings for CB •Provide interface between CLRC and DWMA in administrative aspects and independent feedback •to state/district on D/CLRC

The most sought after services by D/CLRCs were capacity building of course directors, preparation of training modules, help in documentation of case studies, preparing and linking pool of resource persons, preparation of business development plans among others.

10. Demand – Delivery MechanismThe services related to capacity building agenda for watershed management were demanded from the Consortium by CRD, APARD, D/CLRCs and Project Implementing/Facilitating Agency (PIA/PFA) from time to time. These services fell broadly into five categories, viz., professional support, anchoring, module development, techno-managerial services and pilot interventions. In respect of professional support, CARE, WASSAN and APMAS are providing support to 45 D/CLRCs. Whereas, 10 NGOs and 2 Mandal Mahila Samakhyas are anchoring 14 D/CLRCs. Training Modules (23 no.s) were prepared by the consortium in two phases for capacity building (Annexure VII). Out of the seven techno-managerial services, four have been completed by four Livelihood Consortium partners. An illustration of the proposals submitted by consortium partners indicate the range of services offered (Annexure VIII).

11. Funding The DFID funded APRLP had provision for additional human resource support in terms of DCBCs. This was in addition to project fund for CB. The APRLP helped develop systems for planning for CB, unit costs, mode of sanction, mode of receipt of fund by D/CLRC, items of expenditure and limits on them, method of accounting for CB funds. Further, as an innovative approach, modular infrastructure was provided for 22 DLRcs and 44 CLRCs so that they work more effectively.

Finance for the capacity building forms part of the budget of watershed development. The proactive approach of donors towards CB agenda in the APRLP till December 2007 facilitated innovative institutional arrangements. In the World Bank funded AP Rural Poverty Reduction Programme, mandal level training centers were established. Later on, from the innovation funds and from capacity building funds at the disposal of the state, training centers were established.

Besides the 5% project funds available for capacity building, separate funds could be sought from the WS program. There is an existing provision for breakup of this 5% fund for various levels upto Gram Panchayat.

Funding for implementing the consortium for capacity building was done by the CRD. The consortium partners/ professional support agencies were funded through APARD. Broad guidelines on the cost norms had been devised for the purpose (Annexure - IX). The proposals and financial implications of the same were prepared by the consortium partners in consultation with the CRD staff. It may be noted that almost 44 institutions (LRCs) have their own training infrastructure (Annexure X). Funds do not seem to be a constraint, as the existing provisions take care of the funding need.

12

12. Major Achievements of the ConsortiumThe Livelihood Consortium was successful in providing need based capacity building support in terms of preparation of training modules, anchoring D/CLRCs and facilitating preparation of pool of resource persons; techno-managerial services like establishing runoff recorders and sediment samplers, ICT hubs; undertaking process documentation through action research and influencing policy formulation. A summary of major accomplishments under different heads is provided in Annexure XI.

13. Monitoring and ReviewThe core group met at least five times during the initial period December 2004 - Nov 2005. In the beginning there were frequent interactions among the consortium members when they met in the working group and subsequently in the meetings convened by AMR-APARD to review the progress on agreed plan of work. As the roles got clarified, and tasks shared, the frequency of meetings came down. Further, the procedural wrangles caught up, to result in unsuitable dates for meetings and too short notices to meet. Attending of meetings by those that were not in a position to take decisions also led to delays in acting on the decisions taken. As a result there were delays in taking action on the decisions.

An e-Group was created as soon as the consortium was formed to enable submission of expression of interest and for other communications among the partners. Though this was a very good initiative it did not evolve further because of lack of required infrastructure and e-readiness on the part of members. Such initiatives will yield result only when all the members of the group have access and a desired level of interest. The Livelihood Consortium met at intervals of 6 months in the beginning for working out the plan of action and subsequent review of the same. The minutes of the meetings were circulated by WASSAN in the beginning. Later, as the members lost interest, the Livelihood Consortium did not respond to WASSAN’s communications with required seriousness and WASSAN thought that this is better done by CRD, as the Livelihood Consortium probably looked for some sort of authority behind the communications. The loss of members’ interest in consortium activities was primarily due to a wide variety of unmet expectations including higher funding. Further there was no mechanism of motivating the members for sustained performance or innovative approaches. Hence, PMU-CRD took over this job. As the sequel to the latest meeting held in June 2008, which resolved to revitalize the Consortium functioning, steps like meeting with the heads of the Consortium partner organizations are afoot. Some aspects that continue to cause concern are limitations on NGOs coming forward to anchor LRCs and achieving role clarity.

It is quite normal to expect from organizations coming from different backgrounds to have differences of opinions/ideologies. Hence there is scope for emergence of conflicts and lobbying for perceived benefits. This requires a mechanism for resolving issues amicably. The MOU has recognized the possibility of such a situation. However, no specific instance of conflicts was reported during the study. But there is a strong need to put in place a system within the consortium to address possible conflicts of interest that may arise in future.

14. ImpactThe benefits of consortium were significant in terms of complementarities and convergence. No specific documentation of tangible benefits that have accrued to various stakeholders of watershed

13

management is available. However, the contribution of COR can be seen indirectly through the pilots and through the increased level of use of capacity building funds across the districts. Therefore, it is difficult to quantify the impact in physical terms. However, what was evident from the study was that a significant improvement in the quality of services provided to the stakeholders by various partners. The following are some such benefits that were reported during the investigation.

The consortium was able to meet the capacity building, mentoring and handholding demands by •the community to a great extent. However, it would be pragmatic to have a goal so that over a period of time such needs can be addressed by the community itself A significant impact of having the consortium was the demystification of the government departments •like the Commissionerate of Rural Development. Similarly, NGOs also got an opportunity to be active partners in ongoing government programmes and share their expertise and experiences to help implement the development agenda of the state. In the process, the cloud of mistrust that existed between the government and non-government sectors for long disappeared. But, the consortium had to deal with the problem of addressing different mindsets and institutional cultures existing in different organizations while developing a common vision for the Consortium.The government norms and procedures are becoming more responsive to needs in the consortium •approach.The impact of the consortium on the development programs was mixed. There was some •duplication in the strengths of NGOs while it was very useful for process learning and technical support. However, it may be said that the consortium provided the implementing department the much needed leverage in terms of technical competence as a mechanism for well as ground level delivery.The consortium also helped to bring to light many grassroots NGOs that had immense experience •in terms of community mobilization and nurturing community based organizations. An important credit to the consortium could be that AP’s experience of experiments in WSM has •been adopted in the new guidelines of WSM issued by Government of India. These included multi-disciplinary body of state level and resource organizations at state and district level.The consortium helped in bringing down the transaction costs to the CRD in terms of outsourcing •of training material. Though it is hard to arrive at exact figures for transaction costs (due to lack of appropriate data availability at various levels) it could be very well inferred that there is a significant cost and time saving, as the services of a multitude of institutions could not have been brought together under one system. However, it would be meaningful to understand the cost implications of establishing and running an institutional arrangement for capacity building under different scenarios.

The consortium took well over three years since its origin, for stabilization. The experiment of bringing partners with varied organizational backgrounds, mindsets and work cultures is in itself a significant achievement. Although at one stage there was a rush for joining the consortium obviously for accessing development fund and networking, needsit slowed down eventually. The quantitative concerns have hitherto dominated the attention of the consortium partners and quality aspects are still far from being addressed. The feedback obtained from the stakeholders suggests that the concept of consortium is yet to be fully internalized at various levels. Therefore, it is too early to apply the yardstick of quality for the services provided by the consortium.

14

15. Operational Lessons and Constraints There were highs and lows in the process of running the consortium. For instance, APARD could not take the consortium forward in the last year and half due to reasons like non-suitability of meeting dates to a majority of the consortium partners and personal centric decisions rather than organizational.

One of the reasons for low performance was expecting initiatives and actions from consortium partners, rather than deciding the task assignment at the consortium level. This does not go well with the philosophy of consortium approach, which essentially is a pool of core strengths of each of the partners.

Over a period of time, it is understood that an open invitation to COR to contribute, did not yield much results. Then, it was decided that the core group identifies issue/area and invites proposals from a members of the COR, who have domain competency in that area.

It is one thing to establish hierarchy of training paraphernalia like D/CLRC to cater to secondary and primary stakeholders, but giving them the freedom to run such institutions on a viable basis is a matter of real challenge. It is this aspect that ought to be given due care by the CRD. In the light of these challenges, following issues need to be addressed to rejuvenate the consortium.

The consortium offered a forum for sharing and learning especially on processes adopted by •different partners and it worked very well as long as there was good program support from the Program Support Unit (PSU). However, once the Commissionerate of Rural Development took over PSU, things went a little slow.Though workshops were held to develop a common understanding of the objectives pursued by •the consortium, once the membership increased, it appeared that many partners did not have a clear vision of the goals. Hence, it may be said that there was lack of clarity among consortium members. Further, many NGOs looked at the consortium as a potential source for obtaining funding. Therefore, there was unhealthy competition to get into the consortium.There is a strong need to state the purpose of the consortium besides mentioning the roles of •different partners.Innovations in processes were well supported as long as there was funding from DFID for the first •three years. Later, there seemed to be a slow down. Therefore, it is suggested that an innovation fund may be created for supporting innovative processes.Providing a platform to build NGOs’ capability. •At the government level, social engineering is still in nascent phase. •Inadequate staff at CLRCs with each center having a mere course director, computer operator and •office assistant.The course director appears to be over burdened given the staffing pattern of the CLRC. •Documentation services of consortium expected at LRCs but not available. •Training of trainers required. •Mobilization of trainees for CB is still a challenge. •Business Development Plans need to be prepared. •At present funds are released to CLRC by DWMA on program-to-program basis. •

15

16. Where to From Here?The leadership provided by CRD in Andhra Pradesh has put the WSM programs on a strong footing in the state. CRD-led consortium has succeeded in redefining WSM programs with focus on necessary ‘software’ measures. The consortium has demonstrated, with some degree of success, the way of involving multi-level stakeholders for working towards sustainable WSD. The task is stupendous and it is only the beginning. There is still a long way to traverse. The long journey is up hill and needs to be guided with vision and clarity at all levels. Though the experiences generated by the consortium are no less than a giant leap, the gains achieved so far need to be consolidated through a process of internalization. This process requires sustained commitment for creating novel institutions, handholding and appropriate policy support.

Besides, many states in the country are looking towards Andhra Pradesh as a model in the field of watershed development and sustainable rural livelihoods. The state has already been identified as a resource state at the national level. This will require sensitization of top decision making officers, say Secretaries of different states. This is a good opportunity for the consortium of partners to work as resource persons in other states and contribute to their development through their expertise. This will be very gratifying for the Livelihood Consortium as it would be looked up to at the national level for its experiences.

Further, the vision and direction towards which the consortium wishes to move in the years to come need to be translated effectively down up to the level of CLRCs. Finally, ways and means of making the entire CB process sustainable can only be thought if the community gains enough capacity to determine its CB needs and meets them at the community level. Though it may sound utopian at the moment, it is perhaps the only desirable way of working towards this goal, which would be a logical end to the entire process.

Based of the AP learning, the study recommends the following practical steps for establishing and strengthening state level consortium, as follows

Steps and processes for setting up state consortium and keeping it functional and relevant in terms of sequencing of activities, follow up and review mechanisms

The prerequisite for forming a consortium is the genuine need for the same at the state level. Once such a need is articulated at some level, a core department may take the initiative to enlist the support of a wide variety of stakeholders towards formation of a consortium. This needs to be followed up with the heads/leaders of the identified organizations so that there is a commitment at the highest level for the purpose. A formal framework delineating the roles and responsibilities of the participating organizations need to be arrived at with broad consensus. Issues like committing of resources and sharing expertise need to be resolved up front. The participating organizations need to identify a nodal person who would handle all communications and issues relating to the functioning of the consortium. There needs to be a high degree of transparency especially in matters related to available financial resources for the consortium. This should be followed by proactive steps to build a common vision for and scope of the consortium by organizing specially designed team building efforts. Periodic review of consortium performance should by planned and executed by a peer group complimented by stakeholder representatives.

16

A feasible organizational structure/s for the consortium

As the consortium is required to cater to at policy formulation and operational needs, the consortium may adopt a two-tier organogram. The top level may focus on policy drafting and evolving guidelines whereas the next level may focus on facilitating operational issues at the ground level. The heads of the organizations may represent the first tier and the nodal person of each organization may be on the second tier. The thematic groups can be formed represent the second tier. At ground level adoption of CLRCs for extending technical/professional support by partners of consortium individually or jointly may be encouraged depending on the physical presence of thematic strength. A conflict resolution mechanism may be built in both levels to ensure a resolving mechanism and to see arising conflicts as a natural outcome of coming together of different organizations.

Suggestions on selection criteria for consortium members

Stature: The brand value of the organization •Expertise: Type of technical/professional manpower •Credibility: Perceived image of the organization among stakeholders •Operational area: Spread and presence •Experience: Length of service and projects handled •Collaborations: Diversity of organizations partnered with •Financial soundness: Sources of budget and stability •Infrastructure: Availability of facilities commensurate with the mandate •

Facilitating factors and potential risks in terms of policy frameworks, institutional struc-tures, decision making and financing mechanisms existing in a state

In most of the states the organizational bottlenecks are coming in the way of innovative project management. Inadequate manpower with poor project management skills, absence of conviction in capacity building as prudent development investment option are some of the crucial bottlenecks. In view of this reality, initiatives like consortium of service providers for capacity building, which requires firm commitment of the top management and operational flexibility, may be a non-starter. Further, frequent change of key personnel on public interest, lack of institutionalized capacity building philosophy are some of the impediments for taking forward the CB process. CB process should be viewed as an integral part of project budgeting while the process itself should strive to capture the impact in such a way that it justifies the investment. Both should go hand-in-hand.

Recommended financing and fund flow mechanisms:

Ideally, initial financing should come from the state government as venture capital since it is the potential beneficiary of the outcomes of consortium. Subsequently funds may be sourced from donors through formulation of viable projects. User charges may also be levied to enrich the corpus built for the purpose. The funds may be managed by the trustees representing the consortium. The fund release may be on half yearly or yearly basis depending on CB plans of the two tiers. Fund utilization and auditing may be done of quarterly basis. The norms for funding different CB process need to be reviewed from time to time.

17

Annexure I: Terms of Reference of the Study

Assess and document AP experience of consortium of service providers for WSM programmes with focus on:

Benefit/impact of consortium on the public WSM programmes

Key areas in terms of service requirements •Profiles and levels of service providers •Selection criteria for service providers •The demand-delivery mechanism for services •The perceived benefits/value addition for each partner •Organizational structure of consortium •Functional arrangements (hosting, communicating, quality management, fund-flow, etc.,) for •consortiumFinancing •Steps and processes involved in setting up such a consortium and keeping it functional and •relevantCatering to further CB requirements of service providers and for consortium as a whole •Time requirement/transaction costs •Knowledge management aspects •Review mechanisms •Constraints and challenges •

18

Annexure II: Memorandum of Understanding

Introduction

The Government of Andhra Pradesh has been implementing the DFID Assisted APRLP Programme in 5 Drought Prone Districts of Andhra Pradesh.

One major feature of the programme has been developing partnerships with resource organizations both internal as well as external. This partnership has benefited the programme in more than one way.

The Government has now decided to upscale the APRLP approaches to the balance 17 rural districts in Andhra Pradesh. In this background formalizing the partnerships with Resource Organizations (ROs) assumes greater importance.

A series of consultations were held with the Resource Organizations to define the strategy for collaboration. Based on the consultations we have come forward to be part of the proposed “Consortium”.

Definitions

Government means Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by the AMR-APARD in the •Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department.APRLP means Andhra Pradesh Rural Livelihoods Programme funded by the Department for •International Development (DIFD).Consortium means the collaborative arrangement for capacity building activities with selected •members.AMR-APARD means A.M.R.A.P. Academy of Rural Development, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad-500 •030, represented by the Member/Secretary, Center for Development Studies (CDS).WASSAN means Watershed Support Services and Activities Network, Tarnaka, Secunderabad. •Capacity Building means all those activities like trainings, field visits, combined workshops, policy •support, action studies, research, etc.TOR means Terms of Reference issued for specific tasks to the members of the consortium. •PRP means Pool of Resource Persons selected jointly by the district authority and the consortium •members.PMU means Project Management Unit located in the o/o the Commissioner of Rural Development, •Insurance Building, Tilak Road, Abids, Hyderabad.

Purpose of the Memorandum

This memorandum helps to define the following aspects of the partnership. Since this is going to be a long-term partnership, it is important to define the roles and responsibilities of the members of the consortium.

Members

The following organizations have agreed to be members of the Consortium.

19

1. MYRADA – Ananthapur, (Mr. Ramesh) 2. VELUGU – SERP, (Ms. Usha Rani and Mr. Sitaramachandra) 3. APMAS – Hyderabad, (Mr. Srinivas) 4. BAIF – Mahbubnagar, (Mr. Shivarudrappa) 5. AME – Bangalore, (Mr. Ravikumar / Mr. Daniel) 6. ICRISAT – Hyderabad, (Mr. S.P. Wani / Ms. T.K. Sreedevi) 7. CRIDA – Hyderabad, (To be nominated) 8. ANGRAU – Hyderabad, (To be nominated) 9. Centre for Sustainable Agriculture – Hyderabad, (Dr. Ramanjaneyulu)10. SRTRI – Pochampally, (Dr. Hanumantha Rao)11. CARE – Hyderabad, (Mr. Ramesh)12. MART – Hyderabad, (Ch. Srinivasa Rao)13. BASIX – Hyderabad, (Mr. Ramesh)14. WOTR – Ahemadnagar, (To be nominated) 15. RDT – Ananthapur, (Dr. Mallareddy)16. MARI – Warangal, (Mr. Murali)17. OUTREACH – Hyderabad, (Mr. Krishna Reddy)18. WASSAN19. SMILDA20. SAMETI21. Dhan Foundation 22. AKSHARA23. NANDI Foundation

Structure

The Commissioner, Rural Development has nominated the AMR – APARD as the nodal agency for the capacity building activities. AMR-APARD will anchor and co-ordinates the functioning of the consortium. WASSAN will act as the secretariat to the consortium and provide support services.

Functions

The members of the consortium agree to take up the following responsibilities.

1. Decision Making Functions

Participate in the consortium meetings and contribute toi.

The evolution of over all development of the CB strategy.•

Action planning process at state level / district level for strengthening capacity building •inputs.

Review the progress and provide inputs to improve the performance.•

Support the process of creating favorable policy support to the capacity building agenda.ii.

Support the selection process of pool of resource persons. iii.

Suggest the potential resource organizations for taking up any professional services as per iv. the need.

Share the experiences, knowledge and resource material with the consortium – through v. participating in workshops: e-groups and so on.

20

Comment on the quality, utility and relevance of existing modules and new modules (that vi. would be developed form time to time).

2. Professional Support

i. Depending on the need, specific tasks may be assigned to the members of the consortium (based on their expertise and experience) and undertake the following activities.

a. Develop resource material and modules for capacity building.

b. Develop capacities of “pool of resource persons” on the given theme as required, through conducting TOT on the above theme.

c. Provide backstopping support to the PRP members on the given theme.

ii. Depending on the experience and expertise, the level at which these resource organizations operate could be decided (mainly related to target groups).

iii. The members of Consortium may take up the role of anchoring and/ or backstopping a LRC in a given district and make it a model LRC on a given theme.

iv. Undertake any action research project (studies, innovations, field level experimentation) in terms of enhancing capacity building agenda.

Functioning of the consortium

The PMU-APRLP O/o. Commissioner Rural Development, AMR-APARD, SRTRI, SMILDA, SAMETI and WASSAN will form the core group for all matters related to the functioning of the consortium and meet as often as possible.

Based on the need of the PMU, AMR-APARD will convene the meeting of the consortium with specific agenda and intimate the members well in advance. The consortium can meet once in two months initially and each meeting may last for a day.

The AMR-APARD will provide all logistics support for the organization of the meetings, travel and transport and sitting fee for the members of the consortium. The members can also contribute to the items of the agenda. The minutes of the meeting will be communicated to the members of the consortium for follow-up action.

Incase of Professional support services, members of the consortium will make specific proposals to the AMR-APARD and a detailed TOR or Technical Memorandum will be issued by AMR-APARD to the member of the consortium with details of the deliverables and timeframe.

The period of this Memorandum of Understanding of the consortium will be for a period of three years.

Signed on this day 21st December 2004.

21

1. ____________________, MYRADA, Ananthapur (Mr. Y. Ramesh)

2. ____________________, VELUGU, Hyderabad (Mr. Sitaramachandra)

3. ____________________, APMAS, Hyderabad (Mr. Srinivas)

4. ____________________, BAIF, Mahbubnagar (B. Shivarudrappa)

5. ____________________, AME, Bangalore

6. ____________________, ICRISAT, Hyderabad (S.P. Wani)

7. __________________, CRIDA, Hyderabad (Dr. YS Ramakrishna)

8. ____________________, ANGRAU, Hyderabad

9. __________________, Centre for Sustainable Agriculture, Hyderabad (Dr. Ramanjaneyulu)

10. ___________________, SRTRI, Pochampally (Dr. D. Hanumantha Rao)

11. _________________, CARE, Hyderabad (Mr. H. Ramesh)

12. ___________________, MART, Hyderabad (Ch. NV Srinivas Rao)

13.____________________, BASIX, Hyderabad (P. Narsaiah)

14.____________________, WOTR, Ahmednagar/ Mahbubangar (Mr. Crispino Lobo)

15.____________________, RDT, Ecology Centre, Ananthapur (Y.V. Malla Reddy)

16. ___________________, MARI, Warangal (S. Jilani)

17. ___________________, OUTREACH, Hyderabad (B. Krishna Reddy)

18. ___________________, WASSAN, Hyderabad

19. ___________________, SMILDA, Hyderabad

21. ___________________, Dhan Foundation, Hyderabad

22. ___________________, AMR-APARD, Hyderabad

COMMISSIONER: APARD, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad

22

Annexure III: Memorandum of Understanding for Professional Support to Livelihood Resource Centers

1. Purpose of this Agreement

As part of up scaling Andhra Pradesh Rural Livelihoods Project approaches, Govt. of Andhra Pradesh has established 22 District Level Livelihood Resource Centers and 55 Cluster Level Livelihood Resource Centers in all districts. Each center is appropriately staffed with Course Director and an Assistant. GoAP issued separate circulars/ GOs to explain different aspects of the strategy from time to time. A consortium of resource organizations with expertise in different areas is constituted at state level and entered into an MoU to provide professional support to the Livelihood resource centers.

This is an agreement among the four parties to plan for, and provide need based capacity building and training services at cluster and district levels to the primary & secondary stakeholders involved in the implementation of the watershed programme and all other rural development programmes.

2. Parties involved:

Parties involved in signing this MOU include, Project Director, District Water Management Agency, respective consortium member organization for professional support, district level NGO/s anchoring CLRCs and AMR-APARD, which is the nodal agency for these Livelihood Resource Centers.

This deed of agreement is made on _______ day of ________ 2007, in the district of _____________ between following partners:

a. District Water Management Agency, __________________district with full address (O/o DWMA, ________________), represented by the Project Director, (Will be henceforth referred to as First Party)

b. ___________________________________________________________________ a Non Government Resource Organization providing Professional support with full address (_________________________________________________________________________), represented by Designated Officer (will be henceforth referred to as Second Party)

c. _______________________________________________________, a Non Government Organization/s anchoring CLRC/s in the district with full address (_____________________), represented by Designated Officer/s (Will be henceforth referred to as Third Party).

d. Commissioner, AMR – APARD with full address Rajendranagar, Hyderabad, represented by Commissioner/ Nominated Officer (will be henceforth referred to as Fourth Party).

3. Period of Agreement:

This agreement is initially for a period of 1 year, from______________ to 31st March’08. During the last quarter of this period, an independent review of performance would be conducted and the agreement would be renewed/ redesigned, depending upon the needs of the project.

23

4. Area of Operation:

This MoU is applicable to the following Livelihood Resource Centre/s in ___________________ district: –

a. ______________________ DLRC, ____________ district

b. ______________________ CLRC,

c. ______________________ CLRC,

d. ______________________ CLRC,

e. ______________________ CLRC,

f. ______________________ CLRC.

g. ______________________ CLRC (Add on if more centres exist)

5. Roles and Responsibilities of First, Second, Third and Fourth Parties:

There are 4 partners involved in this agreement. Each organization has a specific role and responsibility as envisaged in the agreement. These roles are mentioned below:

5.1. District Water Management Agency:

a. Facilitate preparation and timely approvals of training calendars

b. Timely release of capacity building budgets to the Gram Panchayats/ Village Organizations in case of watershed programme and to the CLRC in case of all other schemes/programmes.

c. Timely release of administrative costs to meet salaries and other costs of Course Directors of the D/CLRCs.

d. Facilitate developing partnerships between stakeholders and Livelihood resource centers for effective implementation of NRM and other programmes.

e. Conduct monthly review with the professional support agency and the team for the progress.

f. Facilitate active participation of WDTs, PIAs, MDTs, DCBC & Course Directors in all workshops & review meetings related to planning & performance appraisals of the LRCs.

5.2. Professional Support Agency:

a. Nominate a designated representative from the agency as stated in the proposal for providing regular guidance & support

b. Work in collaboration with DWMA, district level anchor agencies and other resource institutions for providing support

c. The Professional Support Agency provides support to the LRCs in two phases-

a. Phase 1: - Establishment of systems in LRCs.

- Facilitate quality delivery of capacity building services.

- Focus on sustainability aspects of LRCs.

24

b. Phase 2: - Develop business development plans.

- Diversifying activities and take up innovations.

- Networking with other institutions for resource mobilization & delivery of services.

- Firming up & Consolidation of Support services.

d. Establish planning, implementation and review mechanisms as well as managerial & financial systems at Livelihood Resource Centers in consultation with the other partners.

e. Conduct and facilitate activities as defined in the ToR.

f. Be accountable for achieving the outputs agreed upon in the proposal enclosed herewith.

g. Participate in the review meetings as and when required or called upon on the LRC agenda at district as well as state level

h. Document all processes and progress of the centers on regular basis and share reports with all other partners.

5.3 Anchor Agency at District level:

a. Render full Cooperation to the Professional Support Agency to access support services in order to strengthen and promote sustainable LRCs.

b. Adopt systems proposed by the Professional Support Agency at LRC in mutual agreement.

c. Conduct of day-to-day business at centres i.e., preparation of calendars, mobilization of participants, conduct of programmes, documentation, financial settlements, regular monitoring etc.

d. Establish networks with other departments for business development of the LRCs

5.4. AMR-APARD

a. Policy support at state and district level.

b. Organize initial coordination between Professional Support Agencies & DWMAs.

c. A team of development professionals placed in each livelihood resource centre and recruit new people as and when vacancies arise.

d. Release of agreed upon budget to the respective institutions.

e. Organize quarterly review meetings with the PSAs & anchor agencies and review the progress achieved.

f. Communicate all documents/information to the PSAs.

g. Conduct of performance appraisals of the LRCs in consultation with the PSAs

25

6. Monitoring and Review Systems:

a. The Four Parties in each and every event/ activity would maintain transparency. All parties involved in signing the MOU will review the progress together once in every quarter.

b. Representatives from each of the signatories will participate in the district level review meeting on LRC agenda once in a quarter. Based on the review, action plan for next quarter would be prepared and approved.

c. Monitoring and review mechanism will include proper feedback systems from all four Parties

d. An independent expert, as per the advice of Commissioner of Rural Development office would take up a study to review the partnership during the last quarter

e. The performance of the DLRC would be shared with Consortium of Resource Organizations.

7. Finances:

a. The professional costs (includes facilitation, travel & documentation) mutually agreed upon Rs.____________ (Rupees in words ________________________) will be paid by CRD through AMR-APARD to the respective Professional Support Agency directly in two installments, 75% of the total cost as 1st installment immediately on signing the MoU and balance 25% cost in the 2nd installment.

b. The salary budget of LRC team members and office maintenance and other costs will be channeled through DWMA/Anchor agency only

c. The budget agreed by the respective professional support agency (furnished in the ToR) will be spent directly towards activities to achieve the expected outcomes and submit utilization certificate of the funds received along with the details of the expenditures to the AMR-APARD for accounting purpose & further release of funds.

8. Conflict Resolution Mechanism:

All conflicts should preferably be amicably resolved within the parties. In case of unresolved conflicts, CRD can facilitate the resolution of any conflicts between any of the parties in the agreement. The decision in this meeting is binding on all parties.

9. Termination of MOU:

For terminating the MOU, the following procedure is to be adopted.

a. When either of First and Second parties decides to terminate the MOU, the party has to give an advance notice to other party (at least three months) with valid reasons.

b. Based on the provision made in Point No 7, the concerned party may approach Fourth Party. If the withdrawal is accepted, the concerned may settle the accounts and complete pending

tasks/ other formalities before withdrawal.

26

Authorized person from First Party WitnessSignature: Signature:Name: Name:Designation: Designation:Organization: OrganizationDate: Date:Place: Place:

Authorized person from Second Party WitnessSignature: Signature:Name: Name:Designation: Designation: Organization: OrganizationDate: Date:Place: Place:

Authorized person from Third Party WitnessSignature: Signature:Name: Name:Designation: Designation:Organization: OrganizationDate: Date:Place: Place:

Authorized person from Fourth Party Signature:Name:Designation:Organization:Date:Place:

27

Annexure IV: Theme-Wise Organizations in the Consortium of Resource Organizations

Sub-group No. Theme area for capacity building Consortium member organization I Institution building / capacity building and

gender APMASWASSANCARESERPNaandiMYRADAASCENT Consultants

II Livelihoods – Enterprise Promotion BASIXSRTRIAccess Livelihoods (ALCI)Akshara Network WINGS

III Productivity Enhancement ICRISAT CRIDA VARSHA Scientific Service SocietyPRDISCSABAIFANGRAUSMILDAAME Foundation

IV Natural Resource Management WOTRRDTDHAN Foundation MARI

V Nodal agencies CRDAMR-APARD

28

Annexure V: Profile of Service Providers

S. No.

Consortium member organization Brief Profile

1 APMAS APMAS is a support institution that is committed to quality in Self-Help Banking. Registered in 2001 as a non-government public society, APMAS has already been recognized as a pioneering support organization in the field of Self Help Group Promotion. Works in 11 districts and 96 sub-districts of Andhra Pradesh and have expanded into five other states. The thrust areas are consolidation of support to the SHG movement in Andhra Pradesh, expansion to select states and facilitation of self-organized supervision of SHG federations

2 WASSAN Watershed Support Services and Activities Network (WASSAN) started in 1995 as an informal network of NGOs to influence the Watershed Development Program of Government being implemented in the drought prone areas for economic improvement of the poor, women and marginalized sections of the rural India. As part of advocacy process initiated in ANM 2004, WASSAN was able to conceptualize the role of resource organizations from voluntary sector in watershed development program, along with senior officers of Government of Andhra Pradesh

3 CARE CARE seeks a world of hope, tolerance and social justice where poverty has been overcome and people live in dignity and security. CARE’s mission in India is to facilitate lasting change in the well being and social position of vulnerable groups, especially women and girls. CARE began working in India in 1950. CARE works hand in hand with vulnerable families, especially women and girls, to help them access their rights. CARE helps women to fight for their rights, and to participate in decisions that affect their lives.

4 SERP SERP is an independent autonomous society registered under Public Societies Act. At the state level, there is a State Project Management Unit, consisting of CEO, Addl. CEO, assisted by functional specialists in institution building, capacity building, micro-finance, livelihoods promotion, communications, marketing, partnerships, disability, gender etc. At the district level, in addition to the DRDA staff, District Project Managers representing functional areas such as institution building, micro-finance, community, investment fund, livelihoods, disabled persons empowerment, marketing, gender, communications are employed by SERP to implement the project.

29

S. No.

Consortium member organization Brief Profile

5 Naandi What started out in 1998 as work in a few villages of Andhra Pradesh has expanded to three program verticals of child rights, sustainable livelihoods, and safe drinking Water across several states in the country and as many governments. Naandi with a team of 300 + employees and hundreds of community workers is presently working in nine states: Andhra Pradesh, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Andamans, Nagaland, Punjab, Haryana and Maharashtra touching the lives of more than 1 million underserved people.

6 MYRADA From 1968 to 1978- 79, MYRADA was involved entirely in the resettlement of Tibetan Refugees. Since 1978-79 MYRADA is involved with the rural poor. In response to invitations from state governments and people, MYRADA is directly managing 16 projects in 12 backward districts of Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu. It is presently coordinating two operational networks of NGOs - SUJALA (Karnataka Watershed Development Project) and HIV/AIDS/STI Program. MYRADA has emerged as a major training resource. On average 7000 training programs are conducted. Annually. MYRADA has promoted 71 Community Managed Resource Centres (CMRC) during the past few years.

7 BASIX Bhartiya Samruddhi Finance Limited (BASIX) was established in 1997 is a non-bank financial institution. Its mission is to promote a large number of sustainable livelihoods, including for the rural poor and women, through the provision of financial services and technical assistance in an integrated manner. BASIX will strive to yield a competitive rate of return to its investors so as to be able to access mainstream capital markets and human resources on a continuous basis. Products include loans, insurance, agriculture/business development services (Ag/BDS), and institutional development services

8 SRTRI Swamy Ramanada Tirtha Rural Institute, a life skill training institute with state of the art facilities under the MORD, Government of AP

9 Access Livelihoods (ALCI)

Access Livelihoods Consulting India Pvt. Ltd (ALC India), a management consulting organization run by experienced and passionate professionals from diverse fields, all with one single goal-to enable the creation and proliferation of sustainable livelihoods at the grassroots. Working on the premise that economy has two key components, – one being wealth generation and equitable distribution and second being driven by societal transformation, Access believes the challenge lies in integrating these core elements in terms of comprehensive planning, processes and institutions.

30

S. No.

Consortium member organization Brief Profile

10 Akshara Network Akshara, a not-for-profit development support organization, is initiated by practicing development management professionals to fulfill the need for affordable and timely professional support to individual organizations in development sector. Akshara came into being on October 2, 1998. Akshara promotes supports, sustains and offers appropriate support services to development organizations/groups/individuals and government organizations for the purpose of contributing to professionalism in the development sector, integrated human development and ecological integrity/security.

11 WINGS In the late ‘80s, two practicing chartered accountants identified the need for an accounting software that offered great functionality and incredible simplicity. And this marked the creation of wings accounting software. The software has been sold ever since the first version was launched in 1988. Software products from the house of Wings are the finest in features, functionality and ease of use. The products are rigorously field-tested and have proved to be extremely stable and robust.

12 VARSHA, Scientific Service Society

It is an association of agri and allied sector professionals having wide experience in providing technical consultancy to government and NGOs on benchmarking and evaluation studies.

13 PRDIS Participatory Rural Development Initiatives Society (PRDIS) is a non-government organization (NGO) promoted by a group of professionals. Holistic and sustainable developments are the twin objectives of PRDIS. Participation, partnership, empowerment and innovation are the guiding principles of PRDIS for eradicating poverty and creating a civil society. The growth and development of PRDIS has been phenomenal through its committed endeavors aimed at the upliftment of rural poor and downtrodden in implementation of creative interventions with utmost care and concern for the past nine years. PRDIS continues to play a pioneering role in establishing transparency in the implementation of various developmental programs of the Ministry of Rural Development through District Level Monitoring Programs

31

S. No.

Consortium member organization Brief Profile

14 ICRISAT The International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) is a non-profit, non-political organization that does innovative agricultural research and capacity building for sustainable development with a wide array of partners across the globe. ICRISAT’s mission is to help empower poor people to overcome hunger, poverty and a degraded environment in the dry tropics through better agriculture. ICRISAT adopts integrated genetic and natural resource management (IGNRM) as its overarching research strategy to attain scientific excellence and relevance in agriculture in the semi-arid tropics, focusing on key livelihood and income opportunities to improve the well-being of the poor with equity, multi-disciplinary, sustainability and community participation as core principles. Global Theme on Agroecosystems is one of the four Global Research Themes of ICRISAT and by adopting IGNRM approach, aims to improve rural livelihoods, increase food security and sustainable natural resource management. IGNRM helps achieve sustainable food security and increased income among poor farmers in semi-arid farming systems by using new science tools and approaches in soil, water, agro-biodiversity and climate risk assessment and management.

15 CRIDA Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture (CRIDA) at Hyderabad, on April 12, 1985 to provide the leadership in basic and strategic research in dryland agriculture leaving the location-specific problems and their solutions to AICRPDA centres. To give fillip and further strengthen the activities in this field, the All India Coordinated Research Project on Agrometeorology (AICRPAM) was launched in 1983, also at Hyderabad, with 10 cooperating centres under different SAUs. The strength of AICRPDA and AICRPAM is presently placed at 25 centres each. The Institute has about 60 scientists supported by technical officers and fully equipped laboratories and research farms

16 CSA Centre for Sustainable Agriculture (CSA) is a technology and policy research organization with a vision to make agriculture productive, environmentally/ecologically sensitive, and capable of preserving the social fabric of rural communities. CSA works with farmers to conserve their resources and their rights. Sustainable agriculture seeks to make the best use of nature’s products and services integrating natural regenerative processes into food production processes.

32

S. No.

Consortium member organization Brief Profile

17 BIRD BAIF Institute of Rural Development considers each BPL family as the unit of development, multi-disciplinary village cluster development approach for socio economic development, blends development with applied research and training, promotes of people’s organizations for program implementation and sustainability, ensures empowerment of women, education and community health for better quality of life and integrates environmental protection with livelihood programs. Various programs are implemented by BAIF and its associate organizations in more than 45,000 villages in Maharashtra, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Bihar, Gujarat, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, West Bengal, Orissa and Jharkhand. The core subject areas of BAIF are livestock development, watersheds and agroforestry.

18 ANGRAU The University was started in 1964. It has 9 RARS besides 67 research stations and 7 colleges. The university has over 1000 academic staff besides supporting staff. It has DATT centers in each district supplementing the technology transfer role.

19 AME Foundation AME Foundation is committed to livelihood improvements of resource poor farmers through eco friendly farming systems. AME has been accepted as a resource organization performing a catalytic and facilitative role. AME Foundation has a registered office at Bangalore and the seven Area Units are located at Raichur, Bellary and Bijapur in Karnataka, Madanapalli and Mahbubnagar in Andhra Pradesh and Tiruchirapalli and Dharmapuri in Tamil Nadu. Prior to being registered as foundation, AME was operating as a project.

20 WOTR Watershed Organization Trust is located in Ahmednagar, Maharashtra. It has network 124 NGOs as collaborators. Its mission to provide committed development support, that motivates, energizes and empowers, communities, groups, other organizations and individuals, for self-help through integrated watershed development and enhancement of well-being on a sustainable basis

33

S. No.

Consortium member organization Brief Profile

21 DHAN Foundation

Development of Humane Action (DHAN) Foundation, a professional development organization, was initiated on October 2, 1997.

DHAN Foundation through the Tankfed Agriculture Development Program has facilitated wider consultations among farmers, bureaucrats, scientists and academicians. This has been done through organising policy seminars and workshops, undertaking research and publishing documents and participating in various policy making bodies of State and Central Governments on development of water, small scale irrigation and rural development.

DHAN Foundation is a founder member of INAFI (International Network of Alternative Financial Institutions) focuses on micro finance. It is currently coordinating the INAFI India Chapter.

22 MARI Modern Architects for Rural India has five focus areas viz., biodiversity conservation, biological control, sustainable agriculture, seed conservation and employment promotes natural resource management, land development, income generating programs and joint forest management; conducts immunisation and animal health camps, water and sanitation programs; provides relief and rehabilitation to affected people.

23 CRD During the year 1994, a separate Commissioner of Rural Development was posted as Head of the Rural Development Department de-linking it from the Panchayat Raj wing of PR & RD Commissionerate in Andhra Pradesh. The Department had two major wings namely DPAP & Wage Employment and Development of Women & Children in Rural Areas (DWCRA).

The Commissionerate of Rural Development was further bifurcated into a) Commissionerate of Rural Development & b) Commissionerate of Women Empowerment & Self Employment vide G.O.Ms.No.198, PR&RD (RD.II) Department, Dt.14.6.2001.

Government have issued orders merging the Women Empowerment & Self Employment wing with the Commissionerate of Rural Development vide G.O.Ms.No.15, PR&RD (RD.III) Department, Dt.25.01.2005.

34

S. No.

Consortium member organization Brief Profile

24 AMR-APARD The Academy endeavors to provide Human Resource Development support to the functionaries and partners in Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Organizations through training, action research, monitoring and evaluation and facilitate convergence to meet the objectives of local self-governance for sustainable rural prosperity. This Academy aims to be an Institution of Excellence to meet the current and emerging needs for sustainable rural development and people – centered governance.

APARD has 9 departments on subjects like NRD, management of environment and disaster, transfer of technology etc. The Institute has about 24 faculty besides consultants.

35

Annexure VI: Important Features of the HR Policy of CRD as Applicable to TSU and D/CLRC

1. Recruitment Policy: Recruitment from sourcing to selection will be carried out through a Standard Recruitment Procedure and CDS –APARD shall be the HR service provider.

2. Remuneration System: A rationalized remuneration system is worked out with a structure to fit the existing positions into various levels, grades and scales and provide clear idea on the pay scales being offered for potential future Fixed Tenure Employee (FTE).

3. There will be a Career Advancement Policy. The criteria for taking employees from one level to the next higher level will be based on both eligibility and suitability. The eligibility criteria are laid down in the HR Manual. Suitability will be tested by means of performance appraisal scores, skill tests, interviews, etc.

4. Contract Issuance & reissuance process: A Contractual agreement shall be signed between CDS-APARD as HR service provider and Fixed Tenure Employee (FTE) along with DWMA PD.

5. Induction & Training Policy: All FTEs shall undergo Induction training Program, which shall include a systematic immersion Program.

6. Transfer Policy: FTEs who are transferred purely on the organization’s interest are eligible for Transfer allowances/benefits against an issue of transfer order from the competent authority and without affecting his/her level, scale and grade (unless specified).

7. Additional charge allowances Policy: The FTE is eligible for Full Additional Charge Allowances only if he/she holds full charge of an equal or higher position against an order issued by the competent authority.

8. Leave Policy: The FTE will be eligible for casual leave and maternity/ paternity leave besides the weekly and general holidays.

9. Tour Policy: This policy applies to all FTEs who are not entitled for any Fixed Traveling Allowances. Such employee will be paid TA/DA during their tours as per the prescribed scale.

10. Fixed Traveling Allowances: For the positions, which demand travel for more than 15 days in a month and not provided with an Office vehicle, they are entitled for a certain Fixed Travel Allowances (FTA).

11. Insurance Policy: This policy covers insurance for all the FTEs for accident deaths and or disabilities under Personal Accident Insurance (PAI) and treatment for critical sickness (in case of hospitalization) under Mediclaim policy for the family of four (spouse and two children).

12. Reimbursement Policy: FTE shall be reimbursed cell phone charges and local transportation as per the eligibility mentioned in detail in the Reimbursement Policy.

13. Grievance Handling: A Grievance Handling System shall be put in place in the shape of Human Resource Cell in each DWMA, in the office of the CRD and in the CDS-APARD to register and redress grievances filed by FTE.

36

14. Exit Policy: CRD shall follow Exit Policy to ensure smooth exist of FTE. The process shall include written acceptance of resignation, taking over records and registers, settlement of dues and issues of service certificate. Exit interviews shall be conducted wherever necessary. The contractual staff has to sign a contractual agreement with the Centre for Development Studies – APARD.

37

Annexure VII: List of Watershed Training Modules Produced by Consortium for Commissioner, Rural Development, Andhra Pradesh

S.No. Name of the Module and Material

Role of Community Based Organizations in Watershed Program

Watershed Accounting Methods

Training Module to Farmers on Integrated Nutrient Management

Module on Integrated Pest Management

Seed Production in Participatory Method

Module on Medicinal Plants

Module on Water Management in Rainfed Crops

Module on Productivity Enhancement in Livestock (Animal Husbandry)

APRLP Concepts

Participatory Net Planning

Gender in Watershed Program – 5 sets

Participatory Training Methodologies

Functioning of District and Cluster Livelihood Resource Centres

Process Monitoring in Watersheds

Technical aspects of Watershed Program

Operational Manual for District Cluster Livelihood Resource Centers

Financial Management of District / Cluster Livelihood Resource Centres

Enterprise Promotion

Hariyali Guidelines and Processes (Material and Module)

Managerial skills to District / Cluster Livelihood Resource Course Directors

Social Audit Process in Watershed Development

Business Development for District / Cluster Livelihood Resource Centres

Module on Geographical Information System

38

Annexure VIII: Proposals of Consortium Resource Organizations across Themes

Core Area Proposal

Institution building

Pilot on evolving models in operationalizing User Groups in Watersheds •

Pilot on – CBOs prepared to manage watershed resources beyond the •project support – demonstrate models

To study working relations between GP-VOs in Hariyali watersheds and •propose effective working strategy in collaboration with IKP

Gender Gender Audit – To consolidate data of gender audit conducted in 5 •APRLP districts, report findings, sharing with the districts and ensure findings incorporated in the future gender action plans

Gender Budgeting – To demonstrate model, gender action plan •preparation and implementation of gender budgets

Enterprise promotion

To study:

50% of the identified poor HHs / persons report 20% improvement in •the income

75% of target HHs report improved assets and 60% diversified •enterprises options

80% of SHGs access funds from financial institutions and other sources •for sustaining EP interventions

CBOs ensure provision of 75% micro-plan budget to women / landless / •marginal farmers for enhancing

70% of poor HHs adopting improved / new enterprise techniques and •benefiting options with additional income and employment

50% of poor HHs have accessed other program benefits •

Productivity enhancement

To study:

Increase of yields in major crops like groundnut, castor, redgram, etc, in •APRLP watersheds

Impacts of PE interventions – by practicing IPM, NPM, etc.•

To explore avenues for income generation to the agriculture paraworkers •

To study:

Breed improvement in livestock population •

Availability of fodder•

Increase in milk production •

Natural Resource Management

Study on impact of cost effective structures on small and marginal •farmers’ fields

Study on impact of CPR on landless poor and small and marginal farmers •- Anantapur

39

Annexure IX: Financial Arrangements

1. Standard costs set by the CRD & APARD:

Budget for Professional Support per LRC /Annum

S.No Item UnitsUnit cost

Units per annum Amount

1

Facilitation cost

Person day

Rs.1500/- 36 54000

Conducting monthly planning review meetings

Support in preparation CB action plans/ training calendar for each month

Handholding support while providing trainings at LRCs

2

Travel cost

Per visit cost

Rs. 375/- 36 13500

Planning and review meetings with the team of all LRCs

Handholding and liaison support in operationalising the CB plan

3

Computer and overhead costs per quarterLumsum

per quarter

Rs. 500/- 4 2000Documentation of progress

Share the concerns and experience in quarterly consortium meetings

Total cost per LRC per annum 69500.00

2. Approved Costs of Professional support Agencies :

In consultation with the respective Professional Agencies, proposed costs (as per the annexure) are worked out as per the Standardised norms of the CRD-APARD. A special meeting was convened to discuss the costs and accorded approval as below:

(Rs. In Lakhs)

S.

NoSupport Agency

No. of

LRCs

Name

of the Districts

No. of Units/ annum

Facilitation cost

Travel cost

Documen- tation cost

Total budget

allocation from

APARD

Value of Cost sharing by PSA

1 Wassan 11 Ranga Reddy & Mahbubnagar

36 person days

5.94 1.485 0.22 7.645 3.00

2 APMAS 10 Adilabad & Kadapa 36 person days

5.4 1.35 0.22 6.95 21.7

40

3 CARE 20 Medak,Nalgonda, Karimnagar, Nellore,Guntur, Prakasam & East Godavari

36 person days

10.8 2.7 0.4 13.9 5.38

Note: Considering the request of the PSAs to increase 24 person days to 36 person days, the costing is accordingly done.

3. Management of funds & operational aspects

Agreed costs will be released in two instalments by the APARD directly to the PSA account on •half yearly basis

Respective PSA will submit Utilization Certificate along with a detailed expenditure statement •of the funds released for the release of next instalment

All regular important correspondence from APARD/CRD regarding LRCs of the concerned •districts will be shared with the PSAs

Similarly, all documents and reports produced by the PSAs have to be shared with all other •partners for cross-learning and status review.

Any disputes arising /non-cooperation will have to be resolved with the support of the PD, •DWMAs or the CRD/APARD

41

An

nex

ure

X: I

nfr

astr

uct

ure

wit

h D

/CLR

Cs

Nam

e of

the

N

GO

wit

h di

stri

ct

Acc

omm

o-da

tion

Trg.

Hal

l ca

paci

ty

Trai

ning

equ

ipm

ent

Gen

e-ra

tor

Tele

- ph

one

Wat

er

faci

lity

Toile

tsFo

od f

acili

ty

Roo

ms

Trg.

Hal

l cu

m D

or.

OH

P/Sl

ide

proj

ecto

rM

ike

Whi

te

Boa

rd

TV

/

VC

R /

V

CD

Car

pets

Cha

irs

Bed

sW

omen

/ M

enIn

side

O

ut s

ide

cate

ring

CH

RD

, Kad

apa

8/32

Pe

rson

s

35 p

erso

nso

oo

oo

50

o

oo

o

DD

S, M

edak

o

oo

oo

o

o

o

MA

RI,

War

anga

l2/

12

pers

ons

140

per

sons

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

o

GV

S, C

hitt

oor

o

oo

oo

o

o

o

PEA

CE

, N

algo

nda

2 pe

rson

s30

30 p

erso

nso

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

RD

T, A

nant

hapu

r

oo

oo

o

oo

o

TIM

BA

KT

U

Col

lect

ive,

A

nant

hapu

r

4/20

pe

rson

s3

o

oo

oo

o

o

o

a) 1

cen

ter

100

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

ob)

2 c

ente

r

70

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

o o

oo

c) 3

cen

ter

30o

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

EFF

OR

T,

Prak

asam

2

o

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

a) 1

cen

ter

100

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

o o

oo

b) 2

cen

ter

40o

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo o

oo

MV

F, R

anga

R

eddy

- 3

cen

tres

3

o

oB

lack

oo

o

o

o

a) S

adhs

ivap

et

10

0o

oo

oo

o

o

o

oo

42

Nam

e of

the

N

GO

wit

h di

stri

ct

Acc

omm

o-da

tion

Trg.

Hal

l ca

paci

ty

Trai

ning

equ

ipm

ent

Gen

e-ra

tor

Tele

- ph

one

Wat

er

faci

lity

Toile

tsFo

od f

acili

ty

Roo

ms

Trg.

Hal

l cu

m D

or.

OH

P/Sl

ide

proj

ecto

rM

ike

Whi

te

Boa

rd

TV

/

VC

R /

V

CD

Car

pets

Cha

irs

Bed

sW

omen

/ M

enIn

side

O

ut s

ide

cate

ring

b) I

brah

ampr

am

35

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

c) C

heve

lla

50

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

ASD

S,

Kha

mm

am6

180

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

o

SPE

AK

IND

IA,

Med

ak7/

10 m

en20

-Feb

50o

oo

oo

oo

o

oo

oo

MY

RAD

A, K

adir

i8/

16

pers

ons

2/24

Dor

2/80

pe

rson

so

oo

oo

o

oo

oo

oo

AM

MS,

M

’boo

bnag

ar4/

80

pers

ons

180

per

sons

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

o

OU

TR

EA

CH

, M

adan

apal

le12

pe

rson

s

3/12

0o

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

B’ C

hala

m1

10-J

anJa

n-50

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oO

UT

RE

AC

H,

Prak

asam

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

43

Annexure XI: Summary of Major Accomplishments of Livelihood Consortium

1) CB Support

WASSAN, CARE and APMAS are providing professional support to 45 LRCs in 12 districts •12 local NGOs are acting as anchoring agencies to 14 D/CRCs •23 training modules are developed by various partners of consortium independently / in partnerships •and are being used at LRCsPool of resource persons are identified, trained and are used for trainings •WASSAN had taken up process monitoring of CB services in APRLP •

2) Techno-Managerial Services

SRTRI: Trainings to rural youth (girls) & APDs on upgradation of technical skills for enterprises •ICRISAT: Trainings to primary and secondary stakeholders on productivity enhancement •SMILDA, JK Trust & BAIF: Setting up and monitoring of ILDCs •CRIDA, ANGRAU, ICRISAT: Quality seed supply with runoff recorders, sediment samplers, ICT •Hubs at 3 centres, application of micro-nutrients, supply of tropicultors MANAGE & AME: Designing of workbooks for preparation of watershed wise PE action plan •HID Forum: Visioning of D/CLRCs •

3) Action Research Studies

15 local NGOs: Special streams of projects under CLDP •Action AID: Reducing distress in migration •WASSAN: Large area approach to livelihoods (strengthening livelihoods based on social capital •base)Wings: Documentation of best practices •APMAS: Sub-sector studies on livelihoods •

4) Policy Influence

Developing HR policy for contract employees through ASCENT consultants •Developing cost norms for trainings at various levels •Issue of convergence memos on collaboration arrangements between IKP-DRDA & DWMA •MoU with AMR-APARD for CB services and recruitment, placements and trainings to secondary •stakeholders Development process guidelines for other RD programs, viz., NREGA •

© International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), 2008. All rights reserved.

ICRISAT holds the copyright to its publications, but these can be shared and duplicated for non-commercial purposes. Permission to make digital or hard copies of part(s) or all of any publication for non-commercial use is hereby granted as long as ICRISAT is properly cited. For any clarification, please contact the Director of Communication at icrisat@cgiar.org. ICRISAT’s name and logo are registered trademarks and may not be used without permission. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice.

Citation: Wani Suhas P., Sreedevi, T.K., Sreenath Dixit, Kareemulla, K., Ravindra Singh and Tirupataiah, K. 2009. Consortium Approach for Capacity Building for Watershed Management in Andhra Pradesh: A Case Study. Global Theme on Agroecosystems Report no. 51. Patancheru 502 324, Andhra Pradesh, India; International Crops Research Institute for Semi-Arid Tropics, 48 pages

This publication is part of the research project “Comprehensive Assessment of Watershed Programs in India“ funded by the Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture (CA) and was funded in part through a grant from the Government of India to the International Water Management Institute in support of the Assessment.

Abstract

In Andhra Pradesh, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) has developed and demonstrated holistic consortium approach for improving rural livelihoods through community watersheds. In Andhra Pradesh Rural Livelihoods Programme (APRLP) supported by Department of International Development (DFID), U.K. ICRISAT scaled-up the consortium approach with technical backstopping in 150 watersheds in five districts.

Andhra Pradesh pioneered and up-scaled the livelihood approach in watersheds for improving rural incomes in dryland areas. As the complexity of meeting the capacity building demands of watershed development projects increased, Andhra Pradesh took the initiative of forming a consortium for providing services to the watershed development stakeholders. This consortium offered lessons and learnings to those in search of new paradigms of integrating watershed development issues with those of rural livelihoods. A study titled Consortium Approach for Capacity Building for Watershed Management in Andhra Pradesh: A Case Study was undertaken through GTZ-Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India (GoI) support to chronicle the evolution of the capacity building consortium in Andhra Pradesh and documenting the lessons learnt, including the experience of ICRISAT in consortium approach for improving the livelihoods of the rural poor.

The study explored the consortium’s role in meeting the capacity building demands for complex livelihood approach, mentoring and handholding demands by the consortium partners, the process of forming consortium through capacity building, demystification of the government departments like the Commissionerate of Rural Development and NGOs’ role and experiences to implement the development agenda of the state along with the benefits and shortcomings which need to be addressed for effective functioning. The case study also recommended some practical steps for establishing and strengthening state level consortium in terms of reviewing mechanism, and sequencing activities, selection of criteria for consortium members, etc. Recently Government of India released new common watershed guidelines professing holistic livelihood approach and this case study would benefit important capacity building aspect for achieving better program implementation in different states.

Report no. 51

3-2009

Global Theme on Agroecosystems

ICRISATScience with a human face

Ministry of Rural Development and Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India

Consortium Approach for Capacity Building for Watershed Management in Andhra Pradesh:

A Case Study

The International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) is a non-profit, non-political organization that does innovative agricultural research and capacity building for sustainable development with a wide array of partners across the globe. ICRISAT’s mission is to help empower 600 million poor people to overcome hunger, poverty and a degraded environment in the dry tropics through better agriculture. ICRISAT belongs to the Alliance of Centers of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR).

Contact InformationICRISAT-Patancheru(Headquarters)Patancheru 502 324Andhra Pradesh, IndiaTel +91 40 30713071Fax +91 40 30713074icrisat@cgiar.org

ICRISAT-Liaison OfficeCG Centers BlockNASC ComplexDev Prakash Shastri MargNew Delhi 110 012, IndiaTel +91 11 32472306 to 08 Fax +91 11 25841294

ICRISAT-Nairobi(Regional hub ESA)PO Box 39063, Nairobi, KenyaTel +254 20 7224550Fax +254 20 7224001icrisat-nairobi@cgiar.org

ICRISAT-Niamey(Regional hub WCA)BP 12404, Niamey, Niger (Via Paris)Tel +227 20722529, 20722725Fax +227 20734329icrisatsc@cgiar.org

ICRISAT-BamakoBP 320Bamako, MaliTel +223 2223375Fax +223 2228683icrisat-w-mali@cgiar.org

ICRISAT-BulawayoMatopos Research StationPO Box 776,Bulawayo, ZimbabweTel +263 83 8311 to 15Fax +263 83 8253/8307icrisatzw@cgiar.org

ICRISAT-LilongweChitedze Agricultural Research StationPO Box 1096Lilongwe, MalawiTel +265 1 707297/071/067/057Fax +265 1 707298icrisat-malawi@cgiar.org

ICRISAT-Maputoc/o IIAM, Av. das FPLM No 2698Caixa Postal 1906Maputo, MozambiqueTel +258 21 461657Fax +258 21 461581icrisatmoz@panintra.com

About ICRISATICRISAT

Science with a human face

www.icrisat.orgDeutsche Gesellschaft für Technische

Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH